y^anrv\. 

T-nVern^"!"- 

Xe\- 


A CHALLENGE  to 
the  CHURCHES 

The  PERMANENT  COURT  of  INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE 


URING  the  next  few  months  the  American  people  must  de- 
cide whether  or  not  the  United  States  shall  follow  the  pro- 
posal of  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  associate 
itself  definitely  with  the  Permanent  Court  of  International 
Justice  established  at  the  Hague. 

The  issue  which  the  World  Court  presents  is  not  a new  one. 
It  embodies  the  age-long  conflict  between  law  and  force  . In  earliest  times 
each  man,  an  absolute  sovereign,  remained  a law  unto  himself.  Disputes 
were  settled  by  an  immediate  appeal  to  force.  But  gradually  this  changed, 
for  the  people  could  not  stand  the  havoc  of  hate  and  conflict  and  destruction 
which  such  a system  involved.  Within  the  family,  then  the  tribe,  then  the 
state,  arbiters  arose.  No  longer  were  individuals  allowed  to  settle  at  will 
with  their  opponents  in  the  ancient  primitive  way.  Slowly  a system  of  laws 
took  shape  governing  the  decisions  of  these  judges.  The  very  progress  of 
mankind  can  be  marked  by  law’s  slow  conquest  over  force. 


But  nations,  the  last  of  the  absolute  sov- 
ereigns, resisted  this  change  and  even  up  to 
yesterday  asserted  the  right  to  be  a law  unto 
themselves.  As  a result  came  the  World  War. 
Today  around  the  earth  the  people  know  that 
if  nations  are  to  survive  they  too  must  subject 
their  individual  wills  to  established  processes 
of  law,  their  individual  interest  to  the  welfare 
of  all  mankind.  All  that  the  Christian  Church 
itself  has  built  up  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of 

LAW  OR 


the  people  through  centuries  of  effort  hangs 
in  the  balance.  For  war  in  the  future,  aided 
by  the  powers  of  science,  simply  means  self- 
destruction.  This  appeal  to  the  sword  can  only 
be  abolished  by  one  means, — the  means  already 
found  effective  within  the  state — by  building 
up  an  appeal  to  law  instead.  That  is  exactly 
the  purpose  of  the  Permanent  Court  of  Inter- 
national Justice.  In  it  we  see  a great  advance 
in  the  long  struggle  of  man  to  civilize  himself. 

FORGE 


The  Christian  forces  of  this  land  for  many 
years  have  advocated  the  settlement  of  inter- 
national disputes  by  courts  of  arbitration 


rather  than  by  resort  to  force.  Indeed  to  them 
belongs  no  small  responsibility  for  the  leader- 
ship taken  by  the  United  States  in  behalf  of 


such  a program  before  the  World  War,  and 
since  1918  denomination  after  denomination 
has  officially  requested  the  leaders  of  our 
Government  to  take  such  steps  as  will  lead 
us  to  active  participation  in  the  new  Perman- 
ent Court  of  International  Justice.  In  May, 
1922,  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  repre- 
senting united  Protestant  feeling  as  it  came 
from  its  constituent  bodies,  presented  to  the 


President  a memorial  urging  our  entrance  into 
the  Court  as  “not  only  the  fruition  and  con- 
summation of  many  decades  of  American  dis- 
cussions, plans  and  desires  for  international 
peace  through  justice  based  on  law,  but  also 
the  promise  of  a larger  and  truer  righteous- 
ness and  justice  among  the  nations,  a step 
forward  in  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  among  men.” 


A LONG  STEP  TOWARDS  A WARLESS  WORLD 


A day  of  great  decision  for  our  country  and 
the  world  has  now  arrived,  a day  long  sought 
by  the  Christian  people  of  our  land.  There  will 
be  strong  forces  at  work  opposing  the  action 
recommended  by  the  President.  Some  will 
conjure  up  dangers  to  frighten  doubtful  minds. 
Others  may  oppose  it  because  it  does  not  go 
all  the  way  in  outlawing  war.  Although  this 
is  true,  the  establishment  of  the  Court  is  a 


most  important  practical  step  in  this  direction. 
Surely  we  should  not  hesitate  to  take  the  first 
step  because  it  is  not  a complete  solution  all 
at  once.  Concerted,  vigorous  and  continuous 
effort  in  support  of  the  Court  is  imperative 
on  the  part  of  all  who  see  in  the  principle  of 
the  supremacy  of  law  the  only  hope  for  the 
nations. 


(The  foregoing  statement  ivas  adopted  by  the  Administrati<ve  Committee  of  the 
Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  on  May  12,  1923.) 


SALIENT  FACTS  ABOUT  THE  COURT 


The  new  Permanent  Court  of  International 
Justice  should  not  be  confused  with  the  old 
Hague  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration.  The 
latter,  established  in  1899,  is  in  reality  not  a 
court  but  a panel  of  135  names  from  which 
nations  may  choose  judges  to  arbitrate  ques- 
tions. It  is  not  a permanently  sitting  court  of 
permanent  judges.  Because  of  this  it  cannot 
as  effectively  build  up  a body  of  international 
law. 

In  1907  Secretary  of  State  Elihu  Root  in- 
structed the  American  delegates  “to  bring 
about  a development  of  the  Hague  tribunal 
into  a permanent  tribunal  composed  of  judges 
who  are  judicial  officers  and  nothing  else,  who 
are  paid  adequate  salaries,  who  have  no  other 
occupation,  and  who  will  devote  their  entire 
time  to  the  trial  and  decision  of  international 
cases  by  judicial  methods  and  under  a sense 
of  judicial  responsibility.”  Later  Senator 


Knox  took  up  a similar  plan  and  sought  to 
have  it  adopted,  but  the  outbreak  of  the  war 
in  1914  caused  its  postponement. 

At  the  end  of  the  war  the  Covenant  of  the 
League  of  Nations  embodied  in  Article  XIV 
this  statement:  “The  Council  shall  formulate 
and  submit  to  the  members  of  the  League  for 
adoption  plans  for  the  establishment  of  a Per- 
manent  Court  of  International  Justice.” 

The  Council  at  once  asked  a number  of  emi- 
nent jurists,  Elihu  Root  being  one,  to  draft 
a plan.  On  December  13,  1920,  its  proposal 
was  unanimously  approved,  with  modifications, 
by  representatives  of  the  forty-eight  states  sit- 
ting in  the  Assembly.  A special  independent 
treaty  was  drawn  up,  wholly  distinct  from  the 
Covenant  of  the  League;  and  as  such  it  now 
has  been  signed  by  forty-six  states,  of  which 
thirty-five  have  completed  their  formal  ratifi- 
cations. 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  COURT 


The  Court  is  composed  of  eleven  regular 
and  four  deputy  judges.  These  are  elected 
for  a term  of  9 years  by  a majority  vote  of  the 
League’s  Assembly  and  Council  acting  inde- 
pendently. They  are  to  give  their  full  and 
continuous  time  to  this  work.  Sessions  are 
held  at  least  once  a year  beginning  June  15th. 
Already  the  Court  has  rendered  three  opinions 
deciding  controversies  concerning  the  activ- 
ities of  the  labor  organization  of  the  League, 
in  which  questions  organized  labor  in  Western 
Europe  was  vitally  interested.  On  February 
7,  1923,  it  rendered  a decision  on  a contro- 
versy between  France  and  Great  Britain  over 
the  application  of  nationality  laws  in  Tunis 
and  Morocco.  At  the  present  time  four  im- 
portant cases  are  already  upon  its  docket  for 
the  coming  session. 

The  Court  is  not  a “private”  Court  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  By  a decision  of  the 


Council  of  the  League  on  May  I2,  1922,  it 
has  been  opened  to  all  the  world.  In  most 
cases  each  party  to  a dispute  must  consent 
before  the  Court  can  deal  with  the  dispute. 
An  optional  clause  in  the  treaty  establishing 
the  Court  has  now  accepted,  in  most  cases 
upon  condition  of  reciprocity,  by  twenty 
states,  recognizing  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court 
as  compulsory  in  disputes  involving  any  ques- 
tion of  international  law,  of  interpretation  of 
a treaty,  a breach  of  an  international  obliga- 
tion, or  extent  of  the  reparation  to  be  made 
for  such  a breach. 

By  Articles  XIII  and  XVI  members  of  the 
League  agree  to  accept  and  support  decisions 
of  the  Court.  States  not  members  of  the 
League  are  not  bound  in  this  way.  For  them 
and,  in  the  last  analysis,  for  all  nations  the 
ultimate  force  behind  the  decisions  of  the 
Court  must  be  the  moral  power  of  the  united 
public  opinion  of  the  world. 


AMERICA’S  OPPORTUNITY 


President  Harding  now  proposes  that  the 
United  States  join  the  Court,  with  reserva- 
tions providing  that: 

1.  No  legal  relation  to  the  League  is  in- 
volved. 

2.  The  United  States  may  participate  in 
the  election  of  the  judges  on  an  equality  with 
the  other  states. 


3.  The  United  States  will  pay  its  proper 
share  of  the  expenses  of  the  Court,  the  ex- 
penditures to  be  approved  by  Congress. 

4.  The  statute  of  the  Court  shall  not  be 
amended  without  the  consent  of  the  United 
States. 


WHAT  TO  DO 


1.  In  the  regular  services  of  public  worship 
pastors  should  pray  and  speak  for  the  exten- 
sion of  the  sway  of  law  over  force,  and  for  a 
whole-hearted  readiness  on  the  part  of  our 
nation  to  play  its  part  in  bringing  this  about. 

2.  See  that  Chambers  of  Commerce, 
Boards  of  Trade,  Farmers’  organizations. 
Labor  organizations.  Rotary  and  Kiwanis 
groups,  in  your  comnKunity  arrange  open 
forums  or  other  meetings  to  discuss  the  prin- 
ciples at  stake  in  the  Court  and  America’s 
responsibility  in  its  development. 


3.  Let  every  individual  do  his  part  to 
develop  the  intelligent  understanding  of  the 
problem  which  is  indispensable.  Write  to  the 
newspapers,  discuss  the  question  with  friends, 
and  present  the  matter  in  public  address  when- 
ever possible. 

4.  Write  to  President  Harding  assuring 
him  of  your  full  support. 

5.  Write  to  your  United  States  Senators, 
expressing  your  strong  desire  that  the  Senate 
should  approve  promptly  the  recommendation 
of  the  President, 


International  Ideals 

of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 

Adopted  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  FEDERAL 
Council  of  the  Churches,  December  i6,  1921,  and 
subsequently  by  many  of  its  constituent  bodies. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 


We  Believe  that  nations  no  less  than  individuals  are  sub- 
ject to  God’s  immutable  moral  laws. 

We  Believe  that  nations  achieve  true  welfare,  greatness 
and  honor  only  through  just  dealing  and  unselfish 
service. 

We  Believe  that  nations  that  regard  themselves  as  Chris- 
tians have  special  international  obligations. 

W e Believe  that  the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherliness  can 
remove  every  unjust  barrier  of  trade,  color,  creed 
and  race. 

W e Believe  that  Christian  patriotism  demands  the  prac- 
tice of  good-will  between  nations. 

W e Believe  that  international  policies  should  secure 
equal  justice  for  all  races. 

W e Believe  that  all  nations  should  associate  themselves 
permanently  for  world  peace  and  good-will. 

We  Believe  in  international  law,  and  in  the  uni- 
versal use  of  international  courts  of  justice  and 
boards  of  arbitration. 

We  Believe  in  a sweeping  reduction  of  armaments  by  all 
nations. 

We  Believe  in  a warless  world,  and  dedicate  ourselves  to 
its  achievement. 


Issued  By 

The  Commission  on  International  Justice  and  Good  will 
OF  THE  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches 
OF  Christ  in  America 

105  East  22nd  Street,  New  York  City 


